GOPISETTY REDDY Vs. MAKAM V BALARAMAIH GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) the learned Counsel representing the appellants.

(2.) The unsuccessful plaintiffs in both the Courts below had raised the following substantial question of law in the present second appeal.

(3.) The learned Counsel made elaborate submissions relating to the respective pleadings of the parties and also had explained in detail the scope and ambit of Section 15 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882 and Section 13 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882; The learned Counsel also on facts had pointed that the Court of first instance, while appreciating the evidence available on record, had recorded findings in detail that if the relief is not granted in favour of the plaintiffs, the house would be as dark as in the night, but however, ultimately had negatived the relief on the ground that joint ownership of a wall would not go along with the right to claim an easement. The learned Counsel also pointed out that the Appellate Court had also proceeded on the same ground that a right of easement cannot be claimed in the case of a joint wall and had negatived the relief. The Counsel maintained that there is no dispute or controversy that originally these houses were owned by the Menta joint family. Subsequent thereto, all these parties by virtue of their purchase had been in possession and enjoyment of the respective houses and in the light of this background inasmuch as Section 13 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882 alone is applicable negativing the relief, cannot be sustained.